Google Docs downloads into your machine a Javascript program which measures half a megabyte, in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long.
It's not so much obfuscation as it is efficiency. Some OSS retarded fanatics could learn a thing or two about that. The HTML that Google servers isn't exactly full of whitespace either.
But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original. Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one delivered in the page.
This guy hasn't got half a clue (thankfully he admits this is an outright lie later on).
A free replacement for Silverlight would hardly be of use in the free world without free replacement codecs.
What does this lunatic want? OSS implementations of the codecs? These exist already. Patent-free kool-aid? Good luck with that, and not just with the codecs!
Our proposal is to consider a Javascript program nontrivial if it defines methods and either loads an external script or is loaded as one, or if it makes an AJAX request.
"Expand images inline" considered harmful and highly nontrivial. Factorizing 4096-bit RSA keys considered trivial.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:21
>>77
Menuetos code is designed in such a way to be readable to any student of the craft and it also includes commentary. Source code that has been translated into binary code do not have the same luxuries. Also, >>70 is intended to be a general statement; you will always find exceptions to general statements.
Your computer DSPs and microcontrollers might be running non-free programs!
Your watch might be running non-free programs!
Your home appliances might be running non-free programs!
Your PostScript viewer/printer might be running non-free programs! Heck, your CAR might be running non-free programs!
This is all correct. There are instances when these things contain non-free programs.
The traffic lights you abide by might be running non-free programs!
This situation only applies to the traffic authority. It is a very situation
>>85 Menuetos code is designed in such a way to be readable to any student of the craft and it also includes commentary. Source code that has been translated into binary code do not have the same luxuries.
machine code is machine code. also, the 64-bit version doesn't have source available but is still not very hard to modify.
It is a very situation
lrn2english
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:30
;/*
; * Microsoft Confidential
; * Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 1991
; * All Rights Reserved.
; */
/* convert an arbitrary based number to an integer */
#include <ctype.h>
#include "tools.h"
/* p points to characters, return -1 if no good characters found
* and base is 2 <= base <= 16
*/
int ntoi (p, base)
char *p;
int base;
{
register int i, c;
flagType fFound;
if (base < 2 || base > 16)
return -1;
i = 0;
fFound = FALSE;
while (c = *p++) {
c = tolower (c);
if (!isxdigit (c))
break;
if (c <= '9')
c -= '0';
else
c -= 'a'-10;
if (c >= base)
break;
i = i * base + c;
fFound = TRUE;
}
if (fFound)
return i;
else
return -1;
}
Does RMS Matthew Stallman realize that when he uses e.g. Google Docs, these 1.5 megabytes of javascript are not the ONLY non-free code that gets involved in providing the desired functionality?
Will we live up to see how he will redefine ``freedom'' again to try and force Google into releasing that other code as well? Like, merge AGPL into GPL?
So it's OK if the non-free code doesn't run in your machine?
So, plain HTML pages served by ISS are OK?
What about internet search providers?
What about... say... a remote terminal session?
Would these... people be happy with a dumb terminal, with all the proprietary evil code running away from them, just offering them the services but no code to run locally?
>>90-92
You seem desperate to score cheap points. Are you naturally insecure or do you just realise you aren't going to win this argument otherwise?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 6:19
>>86
Like I said, it's not hard to find exceptions to the general situation. The issue of source code availability with MenuetOS is irrelevant because the binary program and the original source code are one and the same. That doesn't change the fact that the general statement still stands: it takes an unnecessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code as compared to the source code version; users must have authority to the source to practise freedom 1.
>>93
You are confused about the issues that RMS is referring to.
1. HTML is a language used to describe a special type of document, the hypertext document. HTML is not used to conjure the spirits of the computer.
2. Whatever a person does on their own system is their own problem. If someone serves a web page using IIS, they're the one choosing to give up their freedom, not you. It would be your problem when you run IIS on YOUR computer.
3. Whatever a company (or individual) providing online services does on their own systems is their own business. When you access their system, you aren't going to have the same rights as accessing your own computer system.
4. Remote terminal sessions are the same thing. If the remote session isn't your machine, it isn't your problem to what software they run.
5. RMS actually cautions people who cares for their freedom to only rely on free software and not on online services provided by external entities.
>>96 the binary program and the original source code are one and the same
No they aren't. The binary has no comments. I shudder to think that anyone would make an entire OS in assembly language with nary a comment in the code. Additionally, even ASM can make use of primitive macros to make the code more meaningful, more maintainable, and easier to read, understand, and modify. The object files offer none of this.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 8:23
>>100
Therefore it makes sense to use LISP-processor, since
1) list representing LISP program could be decompiled back in s-exprs and prettyprinted
2) everyone formats their code using prettyprinter
3) no one writes any comments, rather writing clear and selfdocumenting code, so
4) we got a a true bijection!
Needless to mention, LISP-processor would have free microcode.
/thread
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 9:14
>>100
Therefore it makes sense to use Python-processor, since
1) .pyc representing Python program could be decompiled back in blocks and prettyprinted
2) everyone is forced to indent their code
3) no one writes any comments, rather writing clear and properly indented code, so
4) we got a true bijection!
Needless to mention, Python-processor would have free microcode.
>>101
While having access to a LISP processor is a good thing, it won't change the fact that users still need the right to share with their neighbours when they wish (freedom 2) and the right to contribute to their community when they wish (freedom 3).
javascript:while(1){alert("I SUCK COCKS")} // @licstart Copyright (C) 2009 Anonymous - The Javascript code in this bookmarklet is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The code is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>;. @licend
>>109
Good god, you could fit the entire ISC license in that piece of legal boilerplate. The FSF is so damn bureaucratic that had they existed at the time of his ascent, RMS would have written Emacs entirely in Java and XML.
public static void main(String[] *argys)
{
Emacs emacs = new Emacs();
}
}
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 18:13
>>118
I see no design patterns. You have let me down, Richard.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 18:31
Just a thought while you whine about stupid crap like non-``free'' FrozenScripts:
Most CPU's/hardware design in your computer isn't free, but it's not much different from software. That Intel or AMD CPU you may use at home doesn't come with verilog or VHDL prototypes, nor does it come with free cell libraries(I'm not even saying GPL'ed here, I'm saying they're not disclosed at all, and are probably thought of as trade secrets! In cases you even get interfaces to them, it's very rare to get the full thing) , nor hand-optimized custom cell design. Same applies to those GPU chips, and maybe that NIC and so on. What about generic schematics for your mobo, is that open source? Is that ``free''. Most of these are not very different from software nowadays, you can think of what you own in your home or workplace as a compiled then mass-printed copy, and yet almost all that is ESSENTIAL for your beloved ``free'' software to to run is not in the least free.
There are exceptions to this, for example Sun actually published the source code of one of their high end server CPUs, it's an interesting read, but the fact still remains that a lot of what some people dismiss as hardware is nothing more than compiling special software with a physical target ( ex. ASIC chip ), other targets could be sequential simulation or a programmable FPGA(and similar), or even a quick compile-to-c simulation.
I'm not an advocate against or for GPL-based ``free'' software, but people should look around them and see that rms' dream of 100% ``free'' platform is far far from being practical without giving up lot of other rights.